CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University The Journal of Public and Professional Sociology Volume 9 Issue 2 Article 1 August 2017 Terrorism: Motivation and Theory Wayne Korbl Unversity of West Georgia, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/jpps Recommended Citation Korbl, Wayne (2017) "Terrorism: Motivation and Theory," The Journal of Public and Professional Sociology: Vol. 9 : Iss. 2 , Article 1. Available at: https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/jpps/vol9/iss2/1 This Refereed Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Journal of Public and Professional Sociology by an authorized editor of DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Terrorism: Motivation and Theory Cover Page Footnote I would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive feedback and Neema Noori, Ph.D. for inspiring me to pursue this research topic. This refereed article is available in The Journal of Public and Professional Sociology: https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/jpps/vol9/iss2/1 Korbl: Terrorism: Motivation and Theory TERRORISM: MOTIVATION AND THEORY Wayne Korbl University of West Georgia [email protected] INTRODUCTION The following paper attempts to determine motivations behind terrorism from the perspectives of Rational Choice Theory and Social Solidarity Theory. It explains difficulties in agreeing on a common definition of terrorism among different scholars and reviews some of the possible demographic, psychological and social dynamic causes of terrorism, ultimately concluding that understanding motivation for terrorist acts cannot be determined uni-dimensionally and that different levels of terrorist organizations are best understood using different theories. Individual suicide bombers’ motivations can be best explained by Social Solidarity Theory, while sponsoring organizations’ motives are best explained by Rational Choice Theory. According to Olivier Roy (2006), the original al-Qaida members were of predominantly Saudi Arabian and Egyptian origin. Thus, these countries are significantly represented in the paper, to the extent that the example of mechanical solidarity included below is based on Saudi Arabian history. The paper examines suicide terrorism, although it also explores other forms of terrorism. Although this paper examines a pre-Islamic State era of terrorism, some journalists report that the boundaries of the IS “caliphate” are diminishing and requiring it to u-turn into an insurgency and competitor to al-Qaida (Marcus, 2017). Thus, these perspectives still contribute to the understanding of the motivations for past and contemporary terrorism. SUICIDE TERRORISM FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY In reviewing the literature concerning terrorism and Rational Choice Theory, one finds that rational choice is much more accepted in the political science than sociological discipline, perhaps due in part to RCT’s origin in economic theory. Early classical theorists outlined sociology by differentiating it from economic theory. Currently, some theorists are still resistant to the “colonization” of sociology by RCT (which they call exchange theory [Scott, 2000]), although this may be slowly changing (Hedström & Stern, 2008). Since an individual characterized by one person as a terrorist will be characterized by another as a freedom fighter (Bates, 2011; Qirko, 2009; Shughart, 2011), martyr, revolutionary, insurgent, or common criminal (Shughart, 2011), no definition is unanimously recognized (Atran, 2003; Karoui, 2010; Post, et al, 2009). However, definitions provided by many scholars (Atran, 2003; Karoui, 2010; Kydd & Walter, 2006; Pape, 2005; Post, et al, 2009) closely echoed Published by DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University, 2017 1 The Journal of Public and Professional Sociology, Vol. 9, Iss. 2 [2017], Art. 1 the Office of the Coordinator, US Department of State definition of terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience” (Shughart, 2011, p.127). As seen below, the theories that these theorists provide support this definition with the exception that most imply the attempt to influence multiple audiences instead of just one audience. In Rational Choice Theory, individuals are seen to be active, rational agents that determine the best course of action given certain rewards and costs. Many theorists believe that terrorism can be explained through the lens of RCT. Shughart believes that terrorists calculate risks and make choices in order to gain the greatest benefit for the least cost in “money, munitions and manpower” (2011, p.127). They also shift tactics when states enact countermeasures against them. Atran (2003) states that the cost of outfitting a Palestinian suicide bomber is $150, of which transportation to the site is the most expensive item. This cost gains the sponsor organization increased public support and more prospective bombers. Bryan Caplan (2006) counters this assertion, also citing Rational Choice. He believes that the sponsoring organizations have a large motivation to overstate their influence and willingness to utilize suicide terrorism. and questions why there are not more bombings given the claims of plentiful recruits and money to outfit them. Caplan cites the example of two terrorist organizations engaged in a morbid rivalry in which they tried to outdo each other in the number and destructiveness of suicide bombings yet completed only five effective attacks per month. Caplan classifies terrorists into three categories: sympathizers (approve of but do not enact terrorism), active terrorists (actual members of an organization), and suicidal terrorists (who actually self-murder for their belief). While he believes that there are many free riders that gain benefits without incurring cost in this scenario, he points out that suicide bombing claims 4 to 13 times as many lives as traditional terrorism and is thus a more effective and destructive form of terrorism. But what is the ultimate aim of terrorists? Kydd and Walter (2006) believe that terrorism amounts to a costly form of signaling to two crucial audiences– foreign states that they wish to sway and members of their own community that they wish to gain backing from or whom they wish to dominate. According to Kydd and Walter, this signaling serves five purposes: attrition (to persuade the enemy that they will outlast them), intimidation (persuade their population that they can dominate them without fear of reprisal by the government), provocation (to incite the enemy to respond violently, which radicalizes the population and convinces them to support the terrorists), spoiling (undermine any group that tries to make peace with the enemy), and outbidding (convince their population that they are best able to battle the enemy rather than alternative groups). Post, et al (2009) cite Alex Schmid’s Political Terrorism (1983) in which he differentiates https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/jpps/vol9/iss2/1 2 Korbl: Terrorism: Motivation and Theory between the target of violence and of attention. He subdivides targets of attention into 3 groups: 1) the target of terror, same as target of violence; 2) the target of coercion, that group directly threatened by the terrorists; and 3) the target of influence, Western countries or other groups that are the ultimate audience of the act. Schmid also states that terrorism is symbolic, since it aims to challenge a state or other power that it is unable to overthrow. Robert Pape believes that “terrorism has two broad purposes: to gain supporters and to coerce opponents” (2005, p.8). He separates it into 3 categories. The main purposes of acts of “Demonstrative Terrorism” are to gain publicity for recruitment purposes, to draw attention of moderates in the opposition and to draw attention of third parties that might serve to influence the opposition. Examples of this category are hijacking and hostage taking. The purposes of “Destructive Terrorism” are coercion and possible gain of support, although this can backfire due to the increased devastation of the acts. The most violent and risky form is “Suicide Terrorism.” In this category, coercion is attempted even at the risk of increased backlash from the opposition or loss of any possibility of sympathy from neutral parties. The attacker does not expect to survive the act. Pape states that this is not a new phenomenon, although previously attacks were more suicide missions than suicide terrorism. He details attacks by the Jewish Zealots in the first-century AD (see also: Atran, 2003; Stack, 2004), the Shi’ite sect of Ismaili Assassins (hashashins, see also: Atran, 2003) in the eleventh-and twelfth-century, and the Japanese Kamikazes of World War II. Like suicide attackers, the young, educated kamikazes (“divine wind”) volunteered for the task when they realized that orthodox combat would end in conquest (Atran, 2003; Bloom, 2005). Unlike suicide terrorists, kamikazes only attacked military targets and were driven to sacrifice for their country (Momayezi & Momayezi, 2017). Kamikazes were one of the reasons that Americans supported use of the atomic bomb (Atran, 2003). Qirko (2009) points out that kamikazes were deeply influenced by Bushido,